One of the key problems with Sound Unbound, and really it's not a problem at all, is that each essay is so distinct and interesting, that to blog about 2 or 3 of the 30+ essays feels like I'm limited myself just a single note when there's a whole keyboard full of ideas here (not sure about that analogy...).
But I want to start with what caught my attention, and something that I have a sort of answer for. Lanier's essay that closes this book begs the question: "why is there no new pop music?" (He emphasizes repeatedly that it's not an issue of thinking the new pop music of today is bad, but that it doesn't exist.) So my first question will be a repeat of what perplexed Lanier to the point where he just ran out of things to say, ending his essay with a few potential explanations and then stumbling through a last paragraph about his word count.
I think Lanier's perfectly right to ask this question. He spends plenty of time explaining what he means, and even as a deep lover of music, and, more importantly, someone who REALLY hates when people complain about new generations being inferior to the previous ones (there isn't a better way to instantly become old), he certainly has a point. Pop music, the kinds of things that really become huge, is largely the same as it has been for quite some time. I agree this far in his argument, but I think there might be other issues involved that he fails to address.
First, when was the last time what was truly popular was actually, genuinely good and refreshing and new? Even Michael Jackson, whom I'd argue was pretty awesome during his time, was not particularly innovative with his sound. Under Lanier's definition of "new," there really hasn't been music both "new" AND "pop" (meaning not just the genre, but the popularity level) in longer than just a decade. Second, while this may be a bit perplexing, and is undoubtedly the result of some loose combination of the six suggestions he brings up, is this necessarily a bad thing?
What appears to be happening is that with the almost explosively expanding music world (I'd be willing to wager that the shear volume of albums produced in the past 10 years, likely technology related in its expansion, exceeds the total production of history before that, though i have no proof), "pop" music has been diluted, and innovation, as it always has, has been pushed to the outside. What's interesting, is that this innovation is actually pretty big. Small sects of loyal followings cluster into new genres (not just derivitives and amalgamations of other genres) and nearly push forth into "pop" culture. Around the world, artists like Bjork (she comes up a lot here), Sigur Ros, and Cornelius are all doing things much larger than living in the "corners" of the world, just not quite as powerful in this country. What could be seen as enormously popular in one sub-culture, even LARGE subcultures like the "hipster" crowd (typing it in an academic setting makes me slightly nauseous), isn't quite enough to get everyone's teenage little sister singing along.
So what I'm trying to say, is that we've gone on a long time as it is without having the masses following along with the fringe (the really large fringe) innovations. I know I don't answer why people are content with the same old thing, it's baffling to me too. When I hear my neighbors playing music at a party that's the exact same garbage (literally the same songs) that were around in middle school and high school, I can't understand. How come people find something stale and boring and say "No more! If it's new, i don't want it!"? The masses have become old grandmothers, and unlike Lanier's suggestion that we can't just remain aloof, I say we let her rot in a nursing home and keep supporting new sounds.
And my second question relates to Keller's essay about how listening becomes performance. How would this relate to recent trends of things like Rockband, Guitar Hero, and increasing worldwide karaoke interest relate to this? This is interactive of course, blurring listener and performance, but it's also stirring up speculation about how this could be affecting interest in real musical instruments (both positively and negatively). The change here in techonology might indeed change how we make culture. I'm not sure.
Finally, I just wanted to post this video of the Raymond Scott Quartet--because I'm a huge fan of Looney Tunes, and this music, and had no idea who was really behind it until Sound Unbound.
(plus it's shot really well. I'd write about music videos in relation to Ken Jordan, but maybe another time!)
No comments:
Post a Comment